Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
DUTIES of CLERK, Fla. Statutes & Constitution

DUTIES of CLERK, Fla. Statutes & Constitution

Ratings: (0)|Views: 264|Likes:
Published by GRANADAFRAUD
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF EXPIRATION OF ANY AND ALL “writ”
1. The Clerk of this Court fraudulently concealed and conspired with other Officials to conceal that
a. there never was any genuine “$5,048.60” “judgment”;
b. the D.C. Clerk never had any authority to issue the falsified “writ”, Doc. # 425, 2:2007-cv-00228;
c. there never was any valid authentic “writ of execution”;
d. a genuine and authentic “writ of execution” would have expired after 180 days;
e. any procedure on execution shall be in accordance with the practice and procedure of the state of Florida;
f. the legislative history and judicial application of Rule 69(a) make clear that the first sentence of the Rule expresses a limitation on the means of any enforcement of money judgments;
g. the legislative history and judicial application of Rule 69(a) does not create a general power to issue writs of execution in disregard of the state law incorporated by the rest of the Rule.
2. Rule 69(a) represents the drafters' adoption of prior practice under former 28 U.S.C. § 727, Rev.Stat. § 916. United States v. Yazell, 382 U.S. 341, 355, 86 S.Ct. 500, 15 L.Ed.2d 404 (1966); See 1937 Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules, Reprinted in, 7 J. Moore, Federal Practice P 69.01(2).
MEMORANDUM: STATE LAW WOULD HAVE LIMITED effect of a valid writ
3. "Section 916 prohibit(ed) the courts of the United States from adopting, recognizing, or giving effect to any form of execution, except such as was . . . a writ authorized by the laws of the state." See Custer v. McCutcheon, 283 U.S. 514, 517-18, 51 S.Ct. 530, 531, 75 L.Ed. 737 (1931). Thus, the overall intent of Rule 69(a) is to limit both the procedure for obtaining process and the effect of writs to that available under state law.
4. The first sentence of Rule 69(a) does not affect this rule that state remedies are exclusive.
5. Equity Rule 8 is the source of the first sentence of Rule 69(a). 7 J. Moore, Supra at 69-10. Equity Rule 8 restricted remedies on purely monetary equitable judgments to those provided for legal causes. See Hamilton v. MacDonald, 503 F.2d 1138, 1148 (9th Cir. 1974); See 7 J. Moore, Supra at P 69.03(2).
6. Thus, the purpose of the first sentence of Rule 69(a) is to restrict remedies on money judgments to legal process and to avoid broad invocation of in personam relief.
7. The courts have consistently read Rule 69(a) as limiting all federal process on money judgments to the type of process available under state law.
8. Here, Florida law did not give any effect to the facially fraudulent writ, Doc. # 425, Case 2:2007-cv-00228.
9. Rule 69 made availability and effect of federal process strictly subject to state law.
10. Therefore here, the writ of execution fraudulently issued by the clerk had no effect.
11. Because a writ fraudulently issued in the record absence of any judgment solely on the non-existent authority of a crooked U.S. District Court clerk has no effect under Florida law, it has no effect under Rule 69(a).
NOTICE OF APPEAL - ADOPTION BY REFERENCE
12. The Plaintiff Government corruption and crime victims hereby adopt by reference the attached Notice of Appeal and Falsifications in Case No. 2:10-cv-00390-FtM-30-AEP.
OBSTRUCTION OF SATISFACTION OF $24.30 MANDATE & MONEY JUDGMENT
13. On Tuesday, August 24, 2010, PM, the Clerk of Court, Defendant Drew Heathcoat, obstructed Dr. Jorg Busse’s satisfaction of the record final mandate and judgment in the amount of $24.30.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND EXTORTION VIOLATIVE OF FLORIDA LAW
14. On Tuesday, August 24, 2010, PM, Defendant Crooked Clerk Drew Heathcoat illegally demanded “$5,048.60” from Dr. Jorg Busse with criminal intent to defraud, extort, and deliberately deprive.
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
15. Dr. Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott complained to Fort Myers Police about the crimes perpetrated by Defendant Drew Heathcoat.
FLORIDA BAR COMPLAINT
16. Defendant Heathcoat asserted to be a lawyer. Plaintiffs complained to the Florida Bar about the Defen
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF EXPIRATION OF ANY AND ALL “writ”
1. The Clerk of this Court fraudulently concealed and conspired with other Officials to conceal that
a. there never was any genuine “$5,048.60” “judgment”;
b. the D.C. Clerk never had any authority to issue the falsified “writ”, Doc. # 425, 2:2007-cv-00228;
c. there never was any valid authentic “writ of execution”;
d. a genuine and authentic “writ of execution” would have expired after 180 days;
e. any procedure on execution shall be in accordance with the practice and procedure of the state of Florida;
f. the legislative history and judicial application of Rule 69(a) make clear that the first sentence of the Rule expresses a limitation on the means of any enforcement of money judgments;
g. the legislative history and judicial application of Rule 69(a) does not create a general power to issue writs of execution in disregard of the state law incorporated by the rest of the Rule.
2. Rule 69(a) represents the drafters' adoption of prior practice under former 28 U.S.C. § 727, Rev.Stat. § 916. United States v. Yazell, 382 U.S. 341, 355, 86 S.Ct. 500, 15 L.Ed.2d 404 (1966); See 1937 Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules, Reprinted in, 7 J. Moore, Federal Practice P 69.01(2).
MEMORANDUM: STATE LAW WOULD HAVE LIMITED effect of a valid writ
3. "Section 916 prohibit(ed) the courts of the United States from adopting, recognizing, or giving effect to any form of execution, except such as was . . . a writ authorized by the laws of the state." See Custer v. McCutcheon, 283 U.S. 514, 517-18, 51 S.Ct. 530, 531, 75 L.Ed. 737 (1931). Thus, the overall intent of Rule 69(a) is to limit both the procedure for obtaining process and the effect of writs to that available under state law.
4. The first sentence of Rule 69(a) does not affect this rule that state remedies are exclusive.
5. Equity Rule 8 is the source of the first sentence of Rule 69(a). 7 J. Moore, Supra at 69-10. Equity Rule 8 restricted remedies on purely monetary equitable judgments to those provided for legal causes. See Hamilton v. MacDonald, 503 F.2d 1138, 1148 (9th Cir. 1974); See 7 J. Moore, Supra at P 69.03(2).
6. Thus, the purpose of the first sentence of Rule 69(a) is to restrict remedies on money judgments to legal process and to avoid broad invocation of in personam relief.
7. The courts have consistently read Rule 69(a) as limiting all federal process on money judgments to the type of process available under state law.
8. Here, Florida law did not give any effect to the facially fraudulent writ, Doc. # 425, Case 2:2007-cv-00228.
9. Rule 69 made availability and effect of federal process strictly subject to state law.
10. Therefore here, the writ of execution fraudulently issued by the clerk had no effect.
11. Because a writ fraudulently issued in the record absence of any judgment solely on the non-existent authority of a crooked U.S. District Court clerk has no effect under Florida law, it has no effect under Rule 69(a).
NOTICE OF APPEAL - ADOPTION BY REFERENCE
12. The Plaintiff Government corruption and crime victims hereby adopt by reference the attached Notice of Appeal and Falsifications in Case No. 2:10-cv-00390-FtM-30-AEP.
OBSTRUCTION OF SATISFACTION OF $24.30 MANDATE & MONEY JUDGMENT
13. On Tuesday, August 24, 2010, PM, the Clerk of Court, Defendant Drew Heathcoat, obstructed Dr. Jorg Busse’s satisfaction of the record final mandate and judgment in the amount of $24.30.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND EXTORTION VIOLATIVE OF FLORIDA LAW
14. On Tuesday, August 24, 2010, PM, Defendant Crooked Clerk Drew Heathcoat illegally demanded “$5,048.60” from Dr. Jorg Busse with criminal intent to defraud, extort, and deliberately deprive.
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
15. Dr. Jorg Busse and Jennifer Franklin Prescott complained to Fort Myers Police about the crimes perpetrated by Defendant Drew Heathcoat.
FLORIDA BAR COMPLAINT
16. Defendant Heathcoat asserted to be a lawyer. Plaintiffs complained to the Florida Bar about the Defen

More info:

Published by: GRANADAFRAUD on Aug 25, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

08/25/2010

pdf

text

original

 
Session:2011Bill #:GoSession:2011Chamber:Senate SearchYear:2010 SearchEnter Your Zip+4 Code: Go
Select Year:
 
2010Go
The 2010 Florida Statutes
Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Chapter 55
 
JUDGMENTS
View Entire Chapter
55.141Satisfaction of judgments and decrees; duties of clerk.
(1)All judgments and decrees for the payment of money rendered in the courts of this state andwhich have become final, may be satisfied at any time prior to the actual levy of execution issuedthereon by payment of the full amount of such judgment or decree, with interest thereon, plus thecosts of the issuance, if any, of execution thereon into the registry of the court where rendered.(2)Upon such payment, the clerk shall execute and record in the official records a satisfaction ofjudgment upon payment of the recording charge prescribed in s.28.24(12). Upon payment of theamount required in subsection (1) and the recording charge required by this subsection and executionand recordation of the satisfaction by the clerk, any lien created by the judgment is satisfied anddischarged.(3)The satisfaction of judgment executed by the clerk must be substantially in the followingform:Satisfaction of Judgment by ClerkThe undersigned Clerk acknowledges on this day of
(month)
,
(year)
, receipt from
(identity of partymaking payment)
of $
(total amount received)
, comprised of $ face amount of the judgment; $interest accruing on the judgment through the date of payment; $ costs of issuance of anyexecution; and $ for recording.Pursuant to section55.141, Florida Statutes, said sum is paid to satisfy the lien and to discharge thatcertain final judgment in favor of
(name of judgment holder)
whose last known address, if known, is
(address if shown on face of judgment or in recorded affidavit pursuant to section
55.10
(1), Florida Statutes,)
against
(nameof judgment debtor)
recorded in Official Records Volume/Book , page of the public records ofCounty, Florida.Upon the execution of this satisfaction, said judgment is satisfied and discharged.If an address for the judgment holder was provided under section55.10(1), Florida Statutes, I certifythat a copy of this notice has been sent to the judgment holder at said address by certified mail withreturn receipt requested or by registered mail if the notice is to be sent outside the continentalUnited States.Clerk of Court(4)If an address for the judgment holder was provided under s.55.10(1), the clerk shall formallysend a copy of the satisfaction to the judgment holder at that address by certified mail with returnreceipt or by registered mail if the notice is to be sent outside the continental United States. If anaddress is not provided under s.55.10(1) or if delivery cannot be effected to such address, the clerkmay, but is not obligated to, make reasonable attempts to locate the judgment holder. The dischargeAugust 25, 2010Print This Page
Location:
Home >Statutes & Constitution >View Statutes
HomeSessionCommitteesSenatorsInformation CenterStatutes & ConstitutionVideo Broadcasts
8/25/2010 Statutes & Constitution :View Statuteswww.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?1/2

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->